执行国际仲裁裁决 “既判争点禁反言”（Issue Estoppel）的应用与争议（第二部分）

2017年第09期    作者:李霭明    阅读 10,387 次

英国 (持续)

1.本文第一部分探讨了“既判争点禁反言”原则在英国仲裁裁决执行的一个早期应用。事实上，近年关于此原则于同类诉讼中的运用在英国亦再成为焦点，而相关判决更带来了不少争议。

2.在 Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co [2012] EWCA Civ 855 一案中，Yukos 公司成功地于 2006 年在一家俄罗斯仲裁中获胜并得到针对一个由俄罗斯政府操控的企业 Rosneft 公司的四个裁决。但在 2009 年，作为仲裁地法院的俄罗斯法院接纳了 Rosneft 公司提出的废止裁决 (annulment of award) 申请。

3.接着于同年，Yukos 公司设法在荷兰执行同一仲裁裁决，并要求荷兰法院拒绝承认上述废止，理由是俄罗斯法院在废止聆讯中“不公正及不独立” (partial and dependent)。这论点被荷兰法院接纳，最终允许执行裁决。Yukos 公司因此能于荷兰获得裁决的部分执行。

4.为能取得仲裁裁决的全部成果 (主要包括仲裁后的利息)，Yukos 公司进一步在英 国申请执行仲裁裁决。其中的一个争议在于英国法院应否受制于荷兰法院认为俄罗斯法院废止聆讯不公正及不独立的判决而同样地于英国拒绝执行仲裁裁决。

5.在 2011 年，英国原讼庭裁定俄罗斯法院的废止聆讯是否不公正及不独立的问题正是英国法院须裁决的问题，而该问题已被荷兰法院决定了，因此认为“既判争点禁反言”被确立，而 Yukos 公司亦成功取得仲裁裁决执行的命令。 Rosneft 公司提出上诉。

6.在上诉中，关于“既判争点禁反言”部分的判决被推翻。上诉庭虽同意“既判争点禁反言”原则能适用于仲裁裁决执行诉讼中，但它认为荷兰法院和英国法院分别要决定的是上述废止聆讯有否违反各自的公共政策，而两地关于公共政策的法律标准可能大为不同，因此两地法院须处理的问题根本并不相同。上诉庭亦指出要确立俄罗斯法院在废止聆讯中不公正，英国法院须依赖证据以支持该指称而各项被指不公正的地方亦须特别地被列举，举证因此亦与荷兰的法律要求不同。上诉庭最终裁定“既判争点禁反言”没有被确立，英国法院在此议题上不必遵从荷兰法院的判决:

“151 The difficulty with Mr Pollock's submission is that “public order” or “public policy” is inevitably different in each country. The standards by which any particular country resolves the question whether the courts of another country are “partial and dependent” may vary considerably and it is also a matter of high policy to determine the circumstances in which this country should recognise the judgments of a state where the interests of that very state are at stake. Normally such recognition will be given and, if it is to be refused, cogent evidence of partiality and dependency will be required. Our own law is (or may be) that considerations of comity necessitate specific examples of partiality and dependency before any decision is made not to recognise the judgments of a foreign state. It is our own public order which defines the framework of any assessment of this difficult question; whether such decisions are truly to be regarded as dependent and partial as a matter of English law is not the same question as whether such decisions are to be regarded as dependent and partial in the view of some other court according to that court's notions of what is acceptable or otherwise according to its law.

…

153 It is thus clear that cogent evidence is required before it is possible to call a foreign court decision partial and dependent. The relevant degree of cogency may well differ in different countries.” (重点加强)

7.在本文第一部分提及的 Good Challenger 案例及上述的 Yukos 案例虽均认同 “既判争点禁反言”原则上能适用于仲裁裁决执行诉讼中，但英国法院最终还是裁定有关的事实或情况不能令该原则被确立。

8.但不久之后，被认为首个直接运用“既判争点禁反言”原则拒绝仲裁裁决执行的重要案例 Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) 终于在英国出现。

9.Diag Human 公司是一个血浆供应商。它与捷克共和国的纠纷早于 1990 年初已开始。其后，双方通过协议以仲裁形式解决纷争。协议的第 V 条特别指出允许一个额外的仲裁结果审查程序，但各方须在仲裁裁决后的三十天内提出。

10.在 2008 年 8 月，Diag Human公司在与捷克共和国的仲裁中最终获胜。

11.仲裁裁决发出后双方均根据协议分别启动额外的仲裁结果审查程序，但Diag Human公司之后撤回其审查申诮。双方曾就此撤回的效果发生争议，Diag Human公司指责捷克共和国的审查申请并没有得到捷克共和国部长的授权因此对方并没有正确地启动仲裁审查程序，认为仲裁裁决应具有约束力 (binding)。

12.Diag Human 公司并没有在捷克共和国执行仲裁裁决，但却尝试在其他国家如法国，户森堡，英国，美国及奥地利等地进行执行申请。

13.2011年7月，Diag Human公司在英国法院提出执行申请， 英国法院亦批出了执行仲裁裁决的准许命令 (下称“2011年命令”)。

14.但其后于 2013 年 4 月，奥地利最高法院认为上述仲裁裁决是受制于由双方协议所容许的额外审查程序的决定，因此裁定该仲裁裁决未能就《纽约公约》第五（一）（戊）条下的规定对被执行方产生约束力 (not binding), 并拒绝执行裁决。

15.于是Diag Human公司到英国提出进一步的执行申请。而捷克共和国亦同时申请搁置2011年命令。

16.英国法院须处理的其中一个重要问题是“既判争点禁反言”能否在此案被成立，以使当奥地利最高法院拒绝执行该仲裁裁决后，英国法院亦不应允许其执行。

17.Diag Human 公司认为各国有不同方法决定一个裁决是否为最终及具约束力，因此认为有关“既判争点禁反言”的争议并不存在，英国法院应允许裁决在英国执行。

18.英国法院申明“既判争点禁反言”原则适用于根据《纽约公约》执行的仲裁裁决中，并指本案不存在任何情况使英国法院不接纳外国法院对裁决作无约束力的判决。

19.虽然 Eder 法官在判词的第五十八段中同意关于何为公共政策的问题上各国或持不同法理见解，因此此等议题不会构成“既判争点禁反言”(如Yukos案例所指)。但Eder法官认为奥地利最高法院所判决的问题，即本案是否有有效的裁决审查程序在进行中的问题，与英国法院需解决的问题是相同的。因此不管奥地利最高法院的判决在英国法律下是否正确，Diag Human 公司亦已不能诉诸同一议题 ，而这亦应为本英国诉讼的结论。相关判词原文如下:

“[59]However,in circumstances where a foreign court decides that an award is not "binding", I see no reason in principle why that decision should not give rise to an issue estoppel between the parties provided, of course, that the other conditions referred to above apply. In particular, provided that the issue is the same and that the decision can properly be said to be "on the merits", it does not seem to me that the fact that such decision was made in the context of enforcement proceedings as opposed to any other type of proceedings can, of itself, be material. Indeed, that is consistent with the view expressed in the leading textbook…

…

[62]  … There is no doubt that Diag Human's argument that there was in fact no valid review in process and that the Award was therefore binding for that reason was raised before the Supreme Court - as I understood Mr Cox accepted. However, that argument was, in effect, rejected by the Supreme Court. In any event and bearing fully in mind the importance of caution in interpreting any judgment of a foreign court, there is no doubt, in my view, that the issue actually determined by the Supreme Court was that the Award was not binding. It is true that that decision was reached in the context of enforcement proceedings brought pursuant to the Convention which is, as I understand, in effect directly enforceable in Austria whereas the present enforcement proceedings are brought pursuant to s 103 of the 1996 Act. However, in my view, that is a distinction without a difference given the background to that statutory provision and the fact that its purpose is to give statutory effect in this jurisdiction to the Convention; and I did not understand Mr Cox to suggest otherwise. In my judgment, that is sufficient to give rise to an issue estoppel to such effect ie the Award is not binding. As submitted by Mr Crane, Mr Cox's complaint is in truth that the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong as a matter of English law if not as a matter of Austrian law; but as stated above, it is irrelevant whether this court might consider such decision was wrong on the facts or as a matter of English law. For the avoidance of doubt, any overriding consideration that the application of the principles of issue estoppel must work justice rather than injustice does not, in my view, lead to any different consideration.” (重点加强)

20.Diag Human 案例的出现引起了相当的国际讨论，对裁决的意见亦不一。但可以肯定的是此案例为推翻国际仲裁裁决的执行确立了更多的可能性，亦相对地为仲裁的执行带来了不确定性。

李霭明

香港执业大律师, 获香港中文大学法学颁授法律学位（JD）及英国剑桥大学法学硕士。

业务方向：商业及公司法，土地法，遗产法及公法等，亦为国际仲裁中各方作代表律师。